Government showdown of 2023

But the current Republican party isn't? lol you have jokes my guy...good thing I can no longer take an anarchist like you seriously.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

As a newly minted Constitutional originalist it's easy to see which is the simplest to comprehend.

 

But they didn't brain wash the public when CNN was on the side of Democrats?

 

This is basic.

Congress appropriates spending, and the Executive is required to borrow money to meet those appropriations.

Saying the Executive can't borrow money is like saying Congress can approve spending but it cannot be spent. Nonsense.

 

The current Republican party is full of idiots and big government authoritarians, just like the Democrats. They are no more in favor of reducing the power of the federal government and returning to a Constitutionally prescribed order than their colleagues across the aisle, they are just in favor of tax cuts, culture war stuff, and spending ever so slightly less.

If you think the bolded means the President can ignore the debt limit, you are not an originalist.

Incorrect, article 1 section 8 gives Congress the power to borrow money, not the executive. They not only have the power of taxation and spending, but also the power of borrowing. The executive does not have the power of borrowing. You are reading a hidden borrowing power into the executive based on Congress taxing and spending.

 

You're lying in your first sentence, I sure as hell won't waste time reading the rest. Who stormed the Capitol on Jan 6th? What party keeps attempting to restrict voting rights? The clown show that proceeded the 2020 elections was strictly on the Republican party. Get a grip anarchist...

 

Appeal to authority of mark zandi?

No don't care.

Different people are going to have different views. If we all just decide something is not bad it's actually not.

 

The Treasury borrows; it's part of the executive branch. It borrows to meet Congress's appropriations. This isn't complicated.

 

You said two stupid things Republicans did, yes. How does that at all disagree with what I said, let alone make it a lie, when I specifically said the Republican party is full of stupid authoritarians? I just recognize that the party that is specifically and repeatedly talking about ignoring the Constitution is also full of stupid authoritarians (examples: lockdowns, packing the Supreme Court, ignoring the debt ceiling, ignoring Supreme Court rulings they don't agree with). Neither major party wants to let people keep their own money and live their own lives.

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center
Section 8: Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

 

That’s why the 14th is an amendment to the Constitution that modifies the original article.

 

There are a few problems with this stream of thought.

1. Congress delegated the power to issue debt to the Department of Treasury in 1789. That was part of the original mandate of the Treasury and has continued to be the case since the creation of the country. Members of Congress don't physically issue or manage debt. That was entirely delegated to the Department of Treasury when the country was created. This is no different than the fact that Congress has also delegated certain powers around duties, tariffs and tax regulations to various executive agencies.

2. Article 2, section 3 clarifies that the President and Executive Branch have a constitutional obligation to execute ALL laws and powers delegated to it by Congress. This is where the fundamental contradiction of the current situation arises. The President has an obligation to honor the debt ceiling but it also has an obligation to fund all programs and spending obligations. And the Supreme Court also ruled that the President can't pick and choose which programs to fund when it struck down the line item veto. So now we have a situation where the President can't borrow but the President also has a constitutional obligation to fund every spending obligation on the books.

3. And there's the 14th amendment which was originally framed in the context of ensuring that ALL civil war debt was paid for. But the point was that government couldn't pick and choose which debts to pay after the War and the clause was written broadly to say that it includes (but isn't limited to) that civil war debt. Again this goes back to the Article 2 issues. The president can't pick and choose which debt to pay (14th amendment) and which programs to fund (Article 2 Section 3 and Clinton v. City of New York).

The whole thing is a giant contradiction and something has to give. I even went back and found news broadcasts from 1995 where we were discussing the same stupid arguments.

 

Based on this, the IRS - a part of the Executive department - can't collect taxes. The Treasury, also a part of the Executive department, can't pay bills. The Defense Department can't provide for the common defense.

 

With all of the talk about the 14th Amendment, what ever happened to the trillion dollar coin solution? That seemed to avoid Constitutional issues since it's not about issuing debt but just printing more currency.

 

The Dems packed the Supreme Court and did a nationwide lockdown?

 

If you read SCOTUS recent rulings, that seems to be the exact kind of literalism that the current crop of conservatives are angling for, unfortunately.

 

It has constitutional issues too. The whole legal basis of the trillion dollar coin is a piece of legislation from the 1990s that was passed to allow the treasury to mint commemorative coins in any denomination. Ultimately, this would have the same congressional intent issues that the 14th amendment has.

So if both methods would result in lawsuits, the 14th amendment is likely the better option because it is just a straight challenge to the idea of a debt ceiling instead of a weird workaround that in theory could have other consequences.

 

It doesn't, is the issue. It grants no powers to the executive. The 14th Amendment in its entirety is a series of limitations.

1. They do the execution of the borrowing, but the amount they are allowed to borrow is still controlled by Congress. That's what the debt ceiling is. They delegated the mechanics of borrowing the money.
2. The President doesn't get to choose what gets paid and what doesn't, but he also doesn't get to borrow more money over the set limit. When you run out, you run out. It is like paying all your bills with a credit card. You have to pay all your bills, you don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you don't. You do get to choose which order to pay them in though, and when your card hits the credit limit it stops working and you cannot pay any more until the limit is raised. As funds come in, you can pay down the card to allow that much more usage, but only back up to the limit.
3. The 14th Amendment doesn't eliminate the debt ceiling, it just says the government cannot invalidate debts. Not paying them is not invalidating them, it is just being in default. You still owe the debt, you just don't have the money to pay. None of this is contradictory, it all fits together neatly enough, it just gets to a conclusion that the party in favor of a higher debt ceiling without negotiation doesn't like.

The IRS can't create taxes, they can only collect the taxes authorized by Congress. The Defense Department cannot raise armies or appropriate funds for weapons, it can only use what Congress provides.

Apparently you missed the words "talking about". Also, I never said anything about nationwide lockdowns. Did the Democrats talk about packing the Supreme Court? Did Democrats introduce lockdowns? Try to argue against the actual arguments people make, instead of making up strawmen.